A Minimally Invasive Pelvic Multivisceral Resection Approach for Locally Advanced Primary Colorectal Cancers: A Single-Institution Experience

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy for locally advanced colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.

METHODS

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).

RESULTS

There are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD -1.23; CI -1.90 to -0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD -0.43; CI -0.70 to -0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD -0.97; CI -1.30 to -0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.

A systematic review of the pathological determinants of outcome following resection by pelvic exenteration of locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite multimodal therapy 5-15% of patients who undergo resection for advanced rectal cancer (LARC) will develop local recurrence. Management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) presents a significant therapeutic challenge and even with modern exenterative surgery, 5-year survival rates are poor at 25-50%. High rates of local and systemic recurrence in this cohort are reflective of the likely biological aggressiveness of these tumour types. This review aims to appraise the current literature identifying pathological factors associated with survival and tumour recurrence in patients undergoing exenterative surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE Trials database for all studies assessing pathological factors influencing survival following pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC from 2010 to July 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using QUIPS tool.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes for 2864 patients. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant heterogeneity of reported outcomes. Resection margin status and nodal disease were the most commonly reported factors. A positive resection margin was demonstrated to be a negative prognostic marker in six studies. Involved lymph nodes and lymphovascular invasion also appear to be negative prognostic markers with tumour stage to be of lesser importance. No studies assessed other adverse tumour features that would not otherwise be included in a standard histopathology report.

CONCLUSION

Pathological resection margin status is widely demonstrated to influence disease free and overall survival following pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer. With increasing R0 rates, other adverse tumour features must be explored to help elucidate differences in survival and potentially guide tailored oncological treatment.